In 1773, colonists boarded English ships in Boston Harbor and threw heavily taxed tea into the harbor to protest the tax imposed on the tea. Ever since the Boston Tea Party, Americans have argued the validity of new taxes down through the centuries. This objection to new taxes was as real in 1773 as it is today and will be for as long the government taxes consumer products.

The definition of a tax is any money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services. This definition implies that the appropriate purpose of collection of taxes is to fund the desired government functions for the good of all the citizens. Whether income tax, sales tax, or property tax the motive for their collection should be to support the services needed by our society not to punish the citizens or affect their choices.

Recently, a new tax has made its way into American society. The city of Berkeley, California was the first to implement this tax for the purposes of reducing the amount of the sugary drink consumed by its citizens. The tax has since appeared in Oakland and Philadelphia and in each case, the motive seems to be more for the purpose of controlling the behaviors of the citizenry than for the generation of revenue.

The main reason cited by supporters of the tax is that soda is bad for your health and a tax can help control obesity. Obesity is a health concern that it should be addressed and that the added sugar contained in soda is an indisputable health risk. The American Heart Association has reported that consumption of soda is the largest source of added sugar in American diets and a major contributor to obesity in the US. This is clearly a concern to the health of our society and should be addressed through education and promotion of healthy life choices — not through punitive taxation. In fact, according the Wall Street Journal, national soda consumption dropped 21% in the ten years prior to the creation of that 1st tax in Berkley.

Another troubling aspect of the taxation approach is the demographic associated with the soda drinker. Studies reported in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics have shown that the consumption of soda and other sugary drinks is increased in minority populations and that lower income citizens are more likely to consume soda than higher income individuals. They have also reported higher consumption in children of less educated parents than those whose parents have higher degrees. These statistics support the view that a tax on soda impacts those in our country who can least afford such an expense and are least likely to be aware of the health impact of the beverages.

Another interesting item to note is that according the USDA Food and Nutrition website, soda and sugary snacks are eligible to be purchased through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps). It seems ironic that the government, which seeks to control the intake of these products “for our own good,” is then assisting some people to purchase these same products. Additionally, taxing products purchased using SNAP is essentially a double taxation. Since the revenues used to fund SNAP were generated through taxation and the products purchased are then taxed. Most food products are not subject to taxes as are soda and candy.

In 1949, George Orwell wrote that “Big Brother is watching you” in his novel 1984. This fictional sibling is the leader of the totalitarian state which controls the citizens every move — “for their own good.” Our government was created to serve the people of our country, not to dominate us and control our every decision. Each time we support regulations like the soda tax, which allow the government to judge the values of the citizens, we surrender a small amount of our sense of personal responsibility and with it a portion of our freedom.